Glenn Beck draws criticism from Bill Kristol

Bill Kristol laughs off the Glenn Beck phenomena. Beck doesn’t like it one little bit and goes into nasty mode at Kristol, basically stating that he is ill-informed and outdated.

Does Beck ever back off of anything? He and Palin both joust at the established conservatives like Bill Kristol and Barbara Bush. How smart is that? Both Barbara Bush and Kristol has withstood the test of time.

Post navigation

31 Thoughts to “Glenn Beck draws criticism from Bill Kristol”

Why shouldn’t Beck respond to criticism? Kristol’s magazine admitted that they were writing criticisms about the Tea Party and Beck a year ago.

Now, if you are basing anything on THIS video,…..why? There is NO substance to it. There’s a lot of rapid cuts and editing, but, neither Kristol or Beck were heard in full or in context. I can’t comment on Beck’s criticism of Kristol’s alleged ignorance because the video did not show what Kristol said. It only criticized Beck for…criticizing Kristol. What if Kristol HAD said something uninformed?

So, basically, the video doesn’t have enough substance. It was from MSNBC, for one thing, the opponent of Fox and Beck and they were trying to start something. Every time MSNBC hits Beck, they get better ratings.

I just posted this to my FB page. And in that post I mentioned that neither of these yahoos represent anything close to “conservative” thinking in the traditional sense. Burke and Kirk would both laugh and cry at what they see nowadays. They would laugh at these interlopers tearing each other apart but cry that anyone would consider anything they say as truly conservative.

I just posted this to my FB page. And in that post I mentioned that neither of these yahoos represent anything close to “conservative” thinking in the traditional sense. Burke and Kirk would both laugh and cry at what they see nowadays. They would laugh at these interlopers tearing each other apart but cry that anyone would consider anything they say as truly conservative.

But hysteria is not a sign of health. When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He’s marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.

Nor is it a sign of health when other American conservatives are so fearful of a popular awakening that they side with the dictator against the democrats. Rather, it’s a sign of fearfulness unworthy of Americans, of short-sightedness uncharacteristic of conservatives, of excuse-making for thuggery unworthy of the American conservative tradition.

It was not so long ago, after all, when conservatives understood that Middle Eastern dictatorships such as Mubarak’s help spawn global terrorism. We needn’t remind our readers that the most famous of the 9/11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta, was an Egyptian, as is al Qaeda’s number two, Ayman al Zawahiri. The idea that democracy produces radical Islam is false: Whether in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian territories, or Egypt, it is the dictatorships that have promoted and abetted Islamic radicalism. (Hamas, lest we forget, established its tyranny in Gaza through nondemocratic means.) Nor is it in any way “realist” to suggest that backing Mubarak during this crisis would promote “stability.” To the contrary: The situation is growing more unstable because of Mubarak’s unwillingness to abdicate. Helping him cling to power now would only pour fuel on the revolutionary fire, and push the Egyptian people in a more anti-American direction.

Beckophites… that’s a new one 🙂 I kind of miss Beck-bots or the typical assumption that if you watch and/or agree with Beck your some sort of Beck cult follower. Can anyone tell me what qualifies someone as a Beck cult follower?

The problem is one of credibility. Beck claims to do “research” but from what I can tell from listening to him (I do quite often) that research is reading a limited amount of material assembled for him by his staff. His knowledge is based in no way on a substantive study of any of these matters, in which he would consider various perspectives and weigh them out to arrive at his own view. Moreover, he cherry picks bits and pieces that support the conclusions he has before he does any of his “study.” I suppose that this is acceptable for an entertainer and provocateur, which is what he really is, but does not build the credibility and respect required to engage in serious debate about issues and policies.

Beck has never debated anyone of an opposing point of view. That is intellectual dishonesty. When I was in graduate school many years ago I was considered the class conservative and a friend of mine was the class liberal. We enjoyed each other’s company greatly and got along just like Jesse Helms and Hubert Humphrey, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, and many other such politically opposite pairings. We attracted audiences when we started debates during lunch time or after class and everyone had a grand time.

We’ve lost that sort of respectful discussion in this country and need it back desperately.

Beck just makes up stuff. Even suggesting that the United States, or even Europe, is headed for Sharia law or absorption into a caliphate is utter nonsense. The Muslim population in the US is still tiny and most US Muslims are more interested in building their quality of life rather than religious transformation of our country. France, whose Muslim population is a much larger percentage of its total population than the US, recently banned Muslim head-coverings for women in defiance of the wishes of conservative Muslims. Of course, all nations have boneheaded extremists who call for things that will never happen, such as Sharia law or creating a worldwide caliphate.

True, thoughtful conservatives must take back leadership of conservatism. They must call out the modern snake-oil peddlers such as Beck who claim to be conservative leaders but whose real intent is only to enrich themselves. The more outrageous you are, the higher your ratings go. The more you scare people, the more you can charge the gold companies (Beck’s biggest sponsors) for ad time. MSNBC recently got rid of Keith Olberman, who was their leftist version of Beck. Good for them!

Regarding open debate, I wonder if Corey Stewart would be willing to debate publically on his land use and development policies, and their impact on Prince William County. I know at least one or two people who would be delighted to take him on in such an event. How about it Corey, are you willing to step out from behind prepared sound bites and defend your views in an open, fair forum? Maybe the Committee of 100 could organize such an event?

Beckophites… that’s a new one I kind of miss Beck-bots or the typical assumption that if you watch and/or agree with Beck your some sort of Beck cult follower. Can anyone tell me what qualifies someone as a Beck cult follower?

The person who no longer speaks to me because I said Beck was inflammatory and influential? They don’t know what I really think or about this blog.

Odd, when I think of ‘cult member’ I tend to think of the stereotypical stuff like standing around in a circle and singing praise to their leader, repetitively singing their name over and over and over and over… kind of like this:

I disagree that Olbermann is a mirror liberal image of Becks. No fan of Olbermann here but I don’t think he was making money off of a product (like gold) nor did he have a millions of cult followers. Most people considered him to be…just Keith Olbermann, a rude, over the top liberal who often right but his delivery system sucked. His enemies, of course, thought he was rude and always wrong. That’s ok too.

Other than that, NTK is dead on right, or perhaps I should say, correct.

One side wanted to change the world, the other one wanted to dumb it down with Sarah Palin. @ Hello. Hello, let me say this. I was dead wrong even lifting you out of moderation. You cannot engage in dialogue. You are just one inappropriate comment after the other. My mistake for even responding to you.

Oddly enough, I knew what the video was before I even looked. You are totally predictable.

Dictators spawn global terrorism. Really? Why don’t those terrorists stay home and free their own countries?

Because they are not interested in their countries. The Muslim Brotherhood’s own statements demand jihad and world wide sharia. They demand death to Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood is not interested in democracy. If conservatives knew such things years ago, why did the Shah and Anwar Sadat and Mubarak get so much support? Because conservatives knew then, as they know now, that the alternative to these autocratic rulers is worse. Oh, and technically, Egypt is a democracy. They have parties and everything. As is Iran. And they support international terrorism. Hmmm…so does Hezbollah and they were just democratically elected. As was HAMAS. Once the Brotherhood and its adherents take power, like the communists, they STAY in power.

Just because the time line is long, does not mean that Europe is safe from sharia. The demographics alone will guarantee that. France may have banned head coverings, but there are still “no go” areas in Paris. The mosques still empty out onto the street to block traffic so as to hold massive prayer meetings. The “youths” from the muslim neighborhoods still riot and burn cars. England is allowing sharia in the courts now. There are some neighborhoods that demand that western women “cover up.” Amsterdam is forcing their citizens to go to the local schools in the muslim neighborhoods, forbidding school choice, which is against Dutch law, so as to force the Dutch in those neighborhoods to assimilate more with their neighbors. In some areas in Norway and Sweden, women have been raped and the attackers given light sentences, if any, because the neighborhood was “muslim” and western garbed women were “asking for it.” In Canada, you can be fined for telling the truth about sharia and jihadists, by the “human rights courts.” Ask Mark Steyn.

What has Beck actually “made up” NTK? I’ve missed it. Can you give me an example? I know that he’s gotten some things wrong. He’s not perfect. But, on the main ideas, what has he gotten wrong? What’s wrong with the message? Non-violence. Take charge of your destiny. Prepare for the worst. Hold elected official accountable to the Constitution.
He was right years ago about the housing market, the recession, the spending, the bills that would be advanced by the Democrats. He predicted them. What has Kristol done to advance the cause of conservatism lately?

This is just the continuing rivalry between the “intellectual conservatives” and the populists. Beck is more of a libertarian than conservative, however. Many of the mainstream conservatives don’t like or are jealous of his influence. I would love for the “thoughtful” conservatives to take back the leadership of conservatism. But, where are they? Were they out defending their principles on TV? Are they out there teaching Americans about conservatism and educating them on progressivism? Where are their history lessons? Why aren’t they trying to defeat the expansion of government?

There is a power vacuum in conservatism. Ever since the loss of William Buckley, Jr., there has been no aggressive, articulate voice. And even he only reached the politically savvy. The common citizen doesn’t care about Burke. He doesn’t remember Buckley. Most conservatives today barely remember Reagan.

We don’t have that “respectful” discussion any more for many reasons. Part of it is the continual demonetization of the fight by the left ever since Reagan. Every time a conservative stated, “Hey, I’ve got an idea…”, they were targeted as racists that wanted to starve poor people. They started that under Reagan and found it worked. Also, as government takes over more and more influence in our lives, politics becomes more “winner takes all.” You want more civility? Lessen the influence of government. You want civility? Then we need more Democrats and less Progressives that follow the Alinsky rules of politics. You were able to have polite conversation with your liberal friends because their was nothing at stake.

When you have a liberal Congress that rams through unread bills, using bribery and tricks, when you have a Congress that gives away authority to unelected officials so that they can’t be held responsible, when you have a Congress that attacks a President for things that THEY authorized, when you have a Congress that passes legislation and then blames the President of the other party for “abuses” caused by said legislation, when you have media that refuses to do their jobs, lies to the public, covers for politicians, and insults their readers and viewers, well……I think “civility” is long gone. Reagan and Tip O’Neal may have been able to share beers, but, Pelosi and Reid, sharing one with ….Palin? Or any Tea Partier? After Pelosi called them nazis? I don’t think so.

Kristol forgot Reagan’s 11th commandment. He attacked someone on his own side so he could make points and look “smart” for the cameras. And yet, he was wrong.

You want Beck to debate someone? He’s invited many Democrats to appear on his show. Where are they?

What do you want the “thoughtful” conservatives to say and do? What do you want them to do to take back their supposed leadership? The problem is that they never had it. Reagan was the last one to have any sort of leadership and even he has been discarded by many of the mainstream conservatives.

You go to war with the army you have. Palin, Beck, Rush, Hannity, DeMint, Bachmann, the Tea Party….that’s who’s fighting. What has Kristol actually done besides sell magazines. Even National Review is a shadow of its former self. Its up to them to TAKE the lead.

I hate to break it to you but there is a history of the left and the Islamists working together. ANSWER, Code Pink, The Communist Party, have all supported the Islamists and the Muslim socialists, which includes the Muslim Brotherhood, or at least many of its leaders. The dream of the Brotherhood IS a caliphate. Beck gives no time lines. What he’s pointing out are the connections and the possibilities. IF Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan fall to fundamentalist Muslim groups, that agenda is advanced. When you connect that with the the Turkish descent back into fundamentalism, Lebanon’s election of Hezbollah, Iran’s continuing successes in killing democratic reform, and the continuing slide across the muslim world since the late 50’s into fundamentalism, the only thing stopping it is that the Sunni and the Shia will kill each other before accepting a Caliphate giving the other any power.

Why is it so hard to believe that leftists that either want power or hate American values will cooperate with Islamic radicals? Much of that hatred of the west came from the socialistic values popular during the 60’s in the Mideast and Europe.

Moon-howler :I agree with most of what NTK just said. 99% in fact.
I disagree that Olbermann is a mirror liberal image of Becks. No fan of Olbermann here but I don’t think he was making money off of a product (like gold) nor did he have a millions of cult followers. Most people considered him to be…just Keith Olbermann, a rude, over the top liberal who often right but his delivery system sucked. His enemies, of course, thought he was rude and always wrong. That’s ok too.
Other than that, NTK is dead on right, or perhaps I should say, correct.

How exactly is Beck ‘making money off of a product (like gold)’? Because they advertise during his time slot?

Also, I agree 100% with you about Beck not being a mirror image of Olberman (who is now getting paid in carbon credits). I have never heard Beck describe some like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVLPqAZnhsw

Sadly, anyone who believes in acquiring some knowledge about a subject and considering all points of view before expressing an opinion is derided and discounted as an “intellectual.” I used to teach college history and have a quite a lot of graduate level study under my belt. I suppose the fact that Glen Beck has found a huge microphone, regardless of what he says with it, makes him more qualified than we “intellectuals” who try to understand something BEFORE we open our mouths.

How much time has Glen Beck and those of similar mind spent abroad or worked with people from other countries? How many Muslims do they actually know? My background is rich in such experiences. I was impacted personally by the September 11 attacks but hold no animosity toward Muslims in general.

Commercial broadcasting (television, radio or cable) survives on advertising revenue. Beck is entertaining (to some people) and a master of those media. The more fear he spreads, the more money he makes from advertising from gold companies and survivalist supply people. Just watch his show or look at his web site to see for yourself.

Just because the Muslim Brotherhood wants something doesn’t mean it will come true. There are radical elements in every society, including our own, who seek absurd goals. If the U.S. acts to prop up a dictatorship (no, Egypt is not a democracy in the sense of free and fair elections open to participation by everyone) we will only strengthen the hand of those elements.

When President Carter at first embraced the Shah, he poured gasoline on the fires in Iran and helped strengthen the movement that gave us the nutcase regime that is in power now. Most Iranians at home and abroad don’t want Sharia law and a global caliphate. They want to get rid of this regime and move toward a secular, free-market democracy. How many Iranians has Glen Beck or Cargo had the opportunity to speak to? I’ve discussed this subject with several (Iranians and people with experience in the area).

At some point we should discuss the role of the U.S. in the world now. A position as the global policeman and arbitrator of everything that everyone else does is no longer appropriate, and we can’t afford it any more. I’m not a Ron or Rand Paul fan, but I agree with the statement Ron made during the 2008 election that we should have a foreign policy of minding our own business.

NTK, if you notice, I did not denigrate the term intellectual, only using it to differentiate between those with theory, like yourself apparently, behind them and the populists. I wasn’t “discounting” anyone. However, being more informed in a subject does not guarantee that those so educated actually know what they are talking about. See Paul Krugman for examples. Or the “global warming” advocates.

And I’m not proposing that we “prop up” Mubarak. I was just pointing out that conservatives HAVE supported dictators when the alternative was worse. However, you still didn’t point out what Beck has “made up.” I would actually like to know since I seem to have missed it and I think that I am pretty well informed.
You speak about the “fear he spreads.” So, warning about upcoming economic collapse for the year prior to the recession is spreading fear? Supporting the buying of gold is spreading fear? If people had listened to him, they would have made HUGE profits. Inflation IS coming. Buying in bulk now will save money. Its called being prepared. Is it spreading fear when other economic experts point out that other countries are buying gold as a hedge against a collapsing dollar so…maybe…it would be a good idea?

President Carter convinced the Shah to liberalize. However, that opened the door to more tyranny under the Ayatollah. The danger in Egypt is that the Brotherhood, being the most organized and willing to use violence, might take power. Beck states that this might happen and recent events point towards it happening.

Most Egyptians don’t want the Brotherhood in power. They want a more democratic government. We should support that. However…..who tends to win these things when it all breaks down? The party that is most ready to take advantage of it. That would be the Brotherhood.

NTK — You do make some good points. Given the nature of our governance and mentality, it does seem highly unlikely that Sharia could ever be a significant threat to our current national cultural existence. But, then, that is what many Brits thought at one time also. Who could possibly believe that a Britain with its long-established Common Law and its great history and traditions would ever wind up dealing with a parallel legal system and growing clashes on the home soil between two starkly different cultures? From my personal experience, it is no longer the Britain I once knew. It is a nation with some serious internal conflicts — and, it appears to me, with an erosion of the personal rights which most British citizens had once considered to be unquestionable and inviolable.

What concerns me much more is the possibility that we could somehow look the other way and allow the seeds of that parallel legal system and an almost inevitable cultural clash to penetrate here. What would be the American reaction, for instance, to seeing the long struggle for the rights of women negated in some circles by a foreign system of jurisprudence which by its nature leaves females with far fewer rights than males? Could we just ignore it? What would be the reaction of Americans to being told officially, as has happened in Canada and Europe, that they could not utter even an intellectual criticism of that parallel legal system and culture without risking some kind of punishment regardless of our First Amendment rights? Can you imagine an American system in which, as is happening right now in the Netherlands, a leading member of Congress would be put on trial simply for uttering criticisms of the changes being made to culture and governance by the influx and growing cultural influence of Muslim immigrants? That is where I see the danger — not in a takeover of America by Sharia but, rather, in the creation through inattention of an atmosphere of sharp cultural conflict of an almost permanent nature. And, as can be seen in Britain and elsewhere, the business of Sharia and the particular culture from which it comes does not necessarily stay home in thoroughly parallel and strictly separated systems. It begins to leak out into society at large through demands that others must also pay deference to its peculiarities to the max or be punished for not doing so.

As for groups like the Brotherhood, I tend not to underestimate their power and capabilities, especially in countries of the Third World which have never had real experience in operating a truly democratic system. The establishment of a democratic system, in my opinion, is a very delicate and difficult task, especially when you have almost zero experience at it, It can easily be derailed by people with different goals and different motives. Although most would malign the era of European colonialism in Africa, some of those African nations did get a legacy of a parliamentary system based on the European model, a basic educational system based on the same model, and even a base economy which allowed, at the least, the feeding of the people and some profitable exportation of local products. It was not long, however, before most of those systems were derailed, leading first to an era of dictators, either one-party civilians or military rulers; of almost permanent political instability and political repression; of economies arriving at a point where foreign aid was desperately needed just to feed the population; and eventually in some cases to the most God awful hate and bloodshed you could possibly witness. Most of that travail came from people with ulterior motives involving the seeking of wealth and/or power by any means. Democracy paid the price.

No one wishes harder than I do for the Egyptian people to arrive at a system of governance which guarantees personal freedom and fair and open political mechanisms; but, by gosh, you have to careful and vigilant concerning those who may have ulterior goals and motives based on something other than true popular will. I have lived with Muslims — indeed, been virtually embedded in a Muslim culture — and I came to respect and even love those people. But, if they had ever reached a point where I was told to bow to their belief system or possibly suffer some sort of punishment for not doing so, my thought processes would have changed remarkably. The Muslims I knew in my time gained my admiration, respect, and love through their tolerance of our differences, readily and without resentment. I reciprocated by not trying to impose my own parochial views upon them. It worked for us. But it took the both of us to agree genuinely to tango through it.

If you’ve ordered the 3,792 Entrée Package with FREE Drink Mix Combo, Emergency Plus & Essentials Kit for $9,799.99 from Food Insurance (note Beck’s picture and endorsement in the top right corner) you might be a Beck cult follower. I like the photo of the pretty girl smiling with her 2-week food survivial backpack slung over her shoulder. I’m guess if you’re fleeing to the bunker with your survivial kit you’re not smiling like she is. And where is her assault rifle and wagon full of Goldline gold? http://www.foodinsurance.com/

Moe,
I am hearing Jeff Foxworthy right now”you migh be a redneck if….” but for Beck it would be “you might be a Beck cult follower if….” 😉

I have watched Kristol and his bud Mort Kondrake for years, they are the epitome of conservative. I rarely agree with their points of view, but they aren’t rabid or hateful when they express their opinions. They have a well thought out defense of why they believe what they believe, I have enjoyed listening to them debate their points of view, even if I don’t agree.

Beck is not in the same league as Kristol, in fact, what I would love to see is a real debabe with Kristol and Beck.

And it was said, this morning, by Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper. As Politico’s splendid reporter Josh Gerstein explains:

During a House Intelligence Committee hearing Thursday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called Egypt’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement ”largely secular”. …

“The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ … is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam,” Clapper said. “They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera. … In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally”…

Clapper said later in the hearing that the Brotherhood in Egypt runs 29 hospitals ”not under the guise of an extremist agenda.” He said the group fills a vacuum cause by the absence of government services, but added, “It is not necessarily with a view to promoting violence or overthrow of the state.

@Cargo, how on earth is any government supposed to stay on top of a fluid situation that changes minute to minute. How do you propose we get UNclueless?

Beck was on trumpeting with his conspiracy theories. What an A-hole he is. He kept crowing that he was right but never really said about what. The Egyptions are demonstrating? What is it that you want the government that you are so highly critical of to do?

Maybe we could go nuke them. Yea, that’s the ticket. NOT.

Do you deny that the brotherhood and other organizations do charity work? How about Sinn Fein? Actually that isn’t that unusual in oppressed societies.

The government could keep its collective mouth shut until they are all on the same page. We can’t actually do anything else. That’s my only criticism.

Beck WAS trumpeting. He was right. He was criticized, even here (fancy that) about his linkage of the left and the Brotherhood. That’s what he was going on about. THIS time I saw the show. His critics are always so sure that he’s crazy, yet, when he’s right, …. (crickets)

I do not deny that the Brotherhood does charitable work for Muslims. Great. Now if that’s all they did. But the Brotherhood’s VERY REASON FOR EXISTENCE is to advance sharia across the world. That’s in their founding documents. The advocate jihad as the way to do it. They are the parent organization of Al Queada and HAMAS. They are terrorists. Sinn Fein was another terrorist group. As is Hezbollah. Hezbollah is well known for building schools, orphanages, and hospitals. That’s where they keep their armories. They know that Israel won’t bomb them. Nice… real charitable.

Of all people, the Director of National Intelligence needs to be the one person not locked into political correctness. Either he’s an idiot or he’s under orders to spin the Muslim Brotherhood as a reasonable organization. Sure, the Brotherhood is all for elections, until they get into power.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is backing away from comments he made Thursday calling Egypt’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement “largely secular.”

“To clarify Director Clapper’s point – in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood makes efforts to work through a political system that has been, under Mubarak’s rule, one that is largely secular in its orientation,” a spokesman for Clapper, Jamie Smith, said Thursday afternoon. “He is well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organization.”

However, he still is downplaying the violent methods that they use:

The Brotherhood uses the slogan, “Islam is the answer,” and generally advocates for government in accordance with Islamic principles. The movement has as a broad goal unifying what it perceives as Muslim lands, from Spain to Indonesia, as a “caliphate”

At least the Director of the FBI doesn’t have his head in the sand:

FBI Director Robert Mueller said some branches of the Brotherhood have engaged in violence, but he declined to go into detail in a public session. “Obviously, elements of the Muslim Brotherhood here and overseas have supported terrorism,” he said.

Hamas, which is designated by the U.S. as a terrorist group but also runs the elected government in the Gaza strip, is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. U.S. prosecutors have also produced evidence that some Islamic organizations in America, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust, grew out of the Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood HAS officially renounced violence. It just a shame that all these other “offshoots” keep killing people. However, its peaceful intentions are no less ambitious as their stated goals are to topple secular governments and establish sharia. In Egypt they are known for conducting political terrorism against the Copts and other sects.

A 1991 strategy paper for the Brotherhood, often referred to as the Ikhwan in Arabic, found in the Virginia home of an unindicted co-conspirator in the case, describes the group’s U.S. goals, referred to as a “civilization-jihadist process.”

“The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions,” it states. This process requires a “mastery of the art of ‘coalitions,’ the art of ‘absorption’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.'”

“Coalitions,” “absorption,” and “cooperation” are clearly not intended to be sincere exercises based on goodwill.

Before Osama bin Laden formed al Qaeda, he belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood. So did his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

In addition, the terrorist group Hamas identifies itself as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.

Why are there so many jihadists drawn to the Brotherhood? The group’s official motto may tell the story.

It reads:

* Allah is our objective.
* The prophet is our leader.
* Qur’an is our law.
* Jihad is our way.
* Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

Former FBI Special Agent John Guandolo told CBN News the United States must become more aware of the Brotherhood’s growing influence.

“Here in the United States, virtually every prominent Islamic organization is controlled and led by the Muslim Brotherhood,” said Gunadolo. “Why this is key, is because they see that they are going to destroy our Western civilization from within.”

The Brotherhood’s immediate goal, though, is an Islamic state in Egypt — and an end to that country’s peace treaty with Israel.

As for its peaceful intentions, here are the word of its leader from 1996-2002 in his book Jihad is the Way: Jihad is the way presents a different view of violently seizing power and establishing an Islamic state, which is seen by the MB as a religious obligation. “Additionally, without Jihad and the preparation towards it, the obligation cast upon every Muslim to establish an Islamic state and the Islamic Caliphate and to consolidate this religion, will not be realized,” Mashhur wrote.

The book also reinforces concerns about the MB nullifying Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel and destabilizing the region. “Jihad for Allah is not limited to the specific region of the Islamic countries, since the Muslim homeland is one and is not divided, and the banner of Jihad has already been raised in some of its parts, and it shall continue to be raised, with the help of Allah, until every inch of the land of Islam will be liberated, the State of Islam will be established,” Mashhur wrote. “And the youth should know that the problems of the Islamic world, such as Palestine, Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea, or the Philippines, are not issues of territories and nations, but of faith and religion. They are problems of Islam and all Muslims, and their resolution cannot be negotiated and bargained by recognizing the enemy’s right to the Islamic land he stole, therefore, there is no other option but Jihad for Allah, and this is why Jihad is the way.”